Court Order Achimota School to admit Rastafarian students || GhMusicPro

 Rastafarian students win case against Achimota School

GHANA: The Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court has ordered Achimota School to admit the two Rastafarian students who were denied admission.

The Human Rights Division of the High Court, presided over Justice Gifty Agyei Addo, ruled that the fundamental human rights of the two students could not be limited by the rules in question.

Tyron Iras Marhguy and Oheneba Kwaku Nkrabea sued the school’s board of Governors, the Minister of Education, Ghana Education Service and the Attorney General to enforce their fundamental HumaThe applicants asked the court to “declare that the failure and or refusal of the 1st Respondent (Achimota School Board of Governors) to admit or enroll the Applicant on the basis of his Rastafarian religious inclination, beliefs and culture characterised by his keeping of Rasta is a violation of his fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed under the 1992 constitution particularly Articles 12(1), 23, 21(1)(b)(c).”

The two students also wanted “an order directed at [Achimota School] to immediately admit or enroll the applicant to continue with his education unhindered.”

The applicants also sought compensation for the “inconvenience, embarrassment, waste of time, and violation of his fundamental human rights and freedoms.”

Excerpts from the ruling, compiled by our reporter at the trial;

# The respondents do not dispute the fact the at the rules of the school are made by the Board of Governors of the school but the implementation of these rules must be in conformity with the rules of the Ghana Education Service and the 1992 Constitution.

# What has the wearing of dreadlocks which is the manifestation of one’s religious rights got to do with upholding discipline in the school?

# To maintain that a person must cut their dreadlocks which is the manifestation of their religion before they are admitted into the school sins against the 1992 Constitution.

# I reject the argument of the respondents that upholding the reliefs of the applicant will discriminate against other students who abide by the rules of the school.

# Fundamental human rights are not absolute and can be limited by statutes and policies but this must be juxtaposed with the public interest as in this current case.

# What reasonable justification has been put before this court in the implementation of the school rules to convince the court to rule in favor of the respondents?

# The ultimate aim of the rules is to enhance discipline and academic excellence. What will be the effect on the school community if the applicant is allowed to keep his dreadlocks?

# How keeping low hair enhances hygiene in the school has not been impressed on this court and how the applicant keeping his dreadlocks would affect his health and the health of other students has also not been impressed on the court.

# The ultimate aim of the rules of the school is omnibus and I am unable to see the disadvantage to the school community in allowing the applicant to keep his dreadlocks.

# Ordering the applicant to cut his dreadlocks which is the manifestation of his religion which is Rastafari and his culture discriminates against his fundamental human rights and this would not be countenanced by this court.

From the foregoing

# The failure and refusal by the school to admit the applicant because of his dreadlocks which is the manifestation of his religion is a violation of his fundamental human right.

# failure and refusal by the school to admit the applicant because of his dreadlocks which is the manifestation of his religion is a violation of his right to education.

# The order directed at the applicant to step aside during the registration exercise because of his dreadlocks is breach of his dignity and no rightful basis has been provided by the school to interfere with the religious rights of the applicant.

::::::

The School is ordered to admit the applicant to continue his education in the school.

The order directing the applicant to cut his dreadlocks which is a manifestation of his religious right is set aside.

No order as to any compensation due to the future relationship between the applicant and the school.